The Ease Of Refuting Metaphysical Naturalism

The idea that epistemological or metaphysical naturalism is unfalsifiable is utterly false, as there are at least four distinct things that can be proven to exist in full that are wholly immaterial: logic, consciousness, space, and time.  Of these four existents, two cannot not exist (logic and space), and are the only things that inherently possess this quality of necessary existence [1].  All minds, including the mind of God, and time could cease to exist, but not the laws of logic or the space that holds matter, even if matter itself vanishes.

The necessary laws of logic are intangible, existing in the complete absence of matter and mind.  Nonetheless, without consciousness, which is itself nonphysical even if it hinges purely on the existence of a nervous system, there would be nothing to comprehend the laws of logic.  Without consciousness, matter, too, could not be perceived; furthermore, immaterial space is required to hold matter in the first place.  Lastly, time, without which events in the material place could not occur, is also strictly immaterial.

Although the existence of each of the aforementioned existents disproves naturalism on its own, there is another way to refute metaphysical naturalism.  This approach entails recognizing a key aspect of spoken language.  If someone speaks aloud to argue for naturalism, he or she has already refuted their own claims--not only because they are trying to use logic (albeit fallaciously), which is itself immaterial, and because they must have a conscious mind in order to even think about the issue to begin with, but also because the very words they are orally using have no physical substance.

Despite the fact that contemporary scientific consensus regards sound travel as impossible without physical objects to carry vibrations from one position to another, a word itself is still completely immaterial.  It is impossible to grasp or physically feel spoken words because they are not made of matter.  To orally communicate the notion that nothing immaterial exists, a person must rely on something that has no physical substance (multiple such things, in actuality).

Many philosophers and theologians rely on myopic and incomplete ways of addressing naturalism.  On one hand, it is common for them to pretend like naturalism is unfalsifiable but unlikely.  On the other hand, it is also common for them to cite the immateriality of consciousness as the ultimate refutation of naturalism.  Both positions are false.  There are far more foundational ways to refute naturalism than appeals to consciousness, and the fact that the only two things that must exist (logic and space) are immaterial means that not all nonphysical things exist because of matter.

It is very important to highlight that things other than the existence of mind, such as the very words that are spoken aloud in favor of naturalism, prove that the physical cannot be the only thing in existence.  Refuting naturalism in full is far easier than many seem to realize, regardless of how entrenched they are in academia.  However, it is not unusual for academia to be a place of stupidity and intellectual stagnation to begin with, one way or the other.

[1].  See here:
  A.
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
  B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html